State v. City of Clearwater

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. City of Clearwater

168 So. 546, 124 Fla. 354, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1127

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 168 So. 546 (State v. City of Clearwater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. City of Clearwater, 168 So. 546, 124 Fla. 354, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1127 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The City of Clearwater, Florida, under and by virtue of Chapter 9710, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, and acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, for a number of years has owned and operated a municipal gas plant which produces illuminating gas that is distributed by it to consumers throughout the city.

On January 6, 1936, the city, acting through its duly elected and qualified commissioners, adopted an ordinance stating that certain additions and improvements' to the gas plant were necessary, and authorizing an issue of gas revenue certificates in the amount of $79,000.00 to finance *355 these improvements. The ordinance specifically provided that these certificates should be paid off out of a special fund( to-wit: revenues to be derived from the operation of the gas plant; and that no taxes should ever be levied or no moneys diverted from any other city funds for the purpose of paying either interest or principal of the said certificates. The ordinance did not provide for an election to authorize or ratify the issuance of these certificates under Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution of 'Florida, and the city proposes to issue and sell the certificates without having them voted on by the freeholders.

The situation presented in this case is in all respects like unto that dealt with in the case of B. C. Wilson and State of Florida v. City of Bartow, 123 Fla. (see next case), 168 Sou. Rep. 545, this day decided and is controlled by the same applicable principles of law.

So upon the authority of that decision, and our previously decided cases of State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 Sou. Rep. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 Sou. Rep. 924, and State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 Sou. Rep. 300, referred to and followed therein, the decree in this case validating the issuance of the proposed revenue certificates by the City of Clearwater should be, and is hereby, affirmed, the showing being that the proposed certificates are to be used solely for the necessary requirements of an existing operating gas plant into which the proceeds of the certificates are to be invested for the purpose of protecting, improving and extending the existing system, and not to embark upon a new and original, capital venture not authorized by the freeholder electors of the City of Clearwater.

It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that the validation decree of the Circuit Court of *356 Pinellas County, in manner and form as entered and appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, and that mandate in conformity with this judgment do issue within ten days as provided for by Section 5108 C. G. L., 3298 R. G. S., Chapter 11854, Acts 1927, if no petition for rehearing has been filed within that period.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The City of Clearwater, Florida, under and by virtue of Chapter 9710, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, and acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, for a number of years has owned and operated a municipal gas plant which produces illuminating gas that is distributed by it to consumers throughout the city.

On January 6, 1936, the city, acting through its duly elected and qualified commissioners, adopted an ordinance stating that certain additions and improvements' to the gas plant were necessary, and authorizing an issue of gas revenue certificates in the amount of $79,000.00 to finance *355 these improvements. The ordinance specifically provided that these certificates should be paid off out of a special fund( to-wit: revenues to be derived from the operation of the gas plant; and that no taxes should ever be levied or no moneys diverted from any other city funds for the purpose of paying either interest or principal of the said certificates. The ordinance did not provide for an election to authorize or ratify the issuance of these certificates under Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution of 'Florida, and the city proposes to issue and sell the certificates without having them voted on by the freeholders.

The situation presented in this case is in all respects like unto that dealt with in the case of B. C. Wilson and State of Florida v. City of Bartow, 123 Fla. (see next case), 168 Sou. Rep. 545, this day decided and is controlled by the same applicable principles of law.

So upon the authority of that decision, and our previously decided cases of State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 Sou. Rep. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 Sou. Rep. 924, and State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 Sou. Rep. 300, referred to and followed therein, the decree in this case validating the issuance of the proposed revenue certificates by the City of Clearwater should be, and is hereby, affirmed, the showing being that the proposed certificates are to be used solely for the necessary requirements of an existing operating gas plant into which the proceeds of the certificates are to be invested for the purpose of protecting, improving and extending the existing system, and not to embark upon a new and original, capital venture not authorized by the freeholder electors of the City of Clearwater.

It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that the validation decree of the Circuit Court of *356 Pinellas County, in manner and form as entered and appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, and that mandate in conformity with this judgment do issue within ten days as provided for by Section 5108 C. G. L., 3298 R. G. S., Chapter 11854, Acts 1927, if no petition for rehearing has been filed within that period.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 546, 124 Fla. 354, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-city-of-clearwater-fla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack